The High Court has granted KC Capital Property Group Limited leave to amend its statement of claim against Keegan Quarries Limited, including to add allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit. The court’s decision concerns the pleadings in the case; it does not determine whether the allegations are true.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the judgment on 29 January 2025. The company sought permission by motion dated 16 September 2024 under Order 28, rule 1 of the Rules of the Superior Courts. It relied on a draft amended statement of claim, with paragraph 19 containing the proposed fraud and deceit allegations.
The judge said those proposed claims had been prompted by the company receiving an expert concrete technology report dated 6 December 2023. He found the amendments clear and precise, and said they went beyond a bare allegation of fraud. In his view, they gave Keegan Quarries enough information to understand the broad outline of the case it would have to meet and to deliver an amended defence. Further procedural steps, including requests for particulars, discovery, interrogatories and exchange of expert reports, could provide additional detail before trial.
The judgment records some delay in seeking the amendment. However, the defendant’s counsel was understood not to press that issue strongly. The judge noted that the new fraud and deceit claims were based on facts relied on in the original statement of claim, and that the case remained well in advance of trial, so the amendment would not significantly disrupt proceedings.
The judgment also addressed an assertion in affidavit evidence that the application was brought with an ulterior motive to delay the hearing, increase costs and damage the plaintiff. The plaintiff denied that assertion. The judge described the competing assertions as a “swearing match” and found the alleged improper motive had not been established.
Applying the approach in earlier cases, the judge concluded that the proposed amendments related to the real questions in controversy and that it was not manifest that the amended claims would fail. He found no prejudice to the defendant and said none had been established. He therefore granted the application for leave to amend. The ruling permits the revised claims to be pleaded; the judgment makes no finding on their merits.